COIMBRA, PORTUGAL - This past week, the Vatican Information Service
(VIS) released details from an interview between Archbishop Tarcisio
Bertone and Sister Lucy, the sole remaining Fatima seer. The meeting was
held in order to "obtain clarification and information directly from
the surviving visionary". She is reported as saying no further
revelations have been received:

To those who speak and write of new revelations she said: "There
is no truth in this. If I had received new revelations I would have told
no-one, but I would have communicated them directly to the Holy
Father."1

Further revelations have been the subject
of much rumor and speculation and their authenticity is hard to establish
with any certainty. Had the report stopped there, it would be of little
interest. But the conversation then turned to Fr. Gruner and his
positions. "Sister Lucy" claims not only that the Third Secret was fully
revealed:

To whoever imagines that some part of the secret has been hidden,
she replied: "Everything has been published; no secret
remains."2 (emphasis mine here and throughout)

but also that the Consecration of Russia has already been
accomplished:

"I have already said that the consecration that Our Lady desired
was accomplished in 1984 and was accepted in heaven."3

Given the inconsistencies between these new claims and what Sister
Lucy has publicly said on these subjects, one is faced to accept one of
two conclusions: either Sister Lucy has changed her position or the report
is fraudulent. The evidence seems to point to the latter for at least
three primary reasons:

In the officially released version of Third Secret, there were no
words of Our Lady. This means the message from heaven ended with "In
Portugal the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved,
etc."

The promised conversion of Russia has not taken place and the 1984
"Consecration of the World" did not even fulfill the requirements Sister
Lucy herself put forth in 1983.

Sister Lucy is still unexplainably barred from talking publicly on
these matters and only "says" such things as these in secret,
unverifiable meetings.

There also remain a number of other
inconsistencies which do not go away simply by claiming Sister Lucy's
agreement. It is important to remember that behind these issues lie
objective truths. Either the Third Secret was fully revealed by the
Vatican or it was not. Either Russia has been consecrated to Mary's
Immaculate Heart or it has not. While Sister Lucy's consistent restatement
of the requirement of mentioning Russia by name provides support to those
who make the same claim, it is not the cause of such a belief. The
inherent nature of a consecration provides enough rationale for one to
come to this conclusion on his own. So even if Sister Lucy had never been
asked on the matter, it would still be evident that Russia's mention is
necessary.

While it is questionable whether Sister Lucy has changed her mind, the
demonstration of such is not, in itself, proof that the consecration was
done. The heart of the debate is the objective occurrences, not
necessarily Sister Lucy's position. Certain inconsistencies and unanswered
questions would still need addressing. The Vatican party line that "it's
consistent with the past because we say it is," which seems to be
extending to many aspects of Church governance and policy, is just as
unacceptable in this case.

Sister Lucy being escorted
at Fatima

Truth on
trial

Considering for a moment solely the issue of Russia's consecration,
pretend the whole of this debate to be in the context of a courtroom
trial.4 An attorney who is making the case that Russia has not
yet been consecrated to Our Lady's Immaculate Heart calls on Sister Lucy
as a witness. She proceeds to testify that the mentioning of Russia by
name is a requirement of Russia's consecration (obviously), and any
consecration attempt that fails to do so does not fulfill heaven's
request. Sister Lucy said as much in 1983 with regards to the 1982 "almost
consecration".

In response to this testimony, the defense attorneys use their
influence to bring about the silencing of that witness. Sister Lucy is no
longer able to appear in the courtroom and legally prevented from so much
as speaking on the subject. The trial must go on without her.

Next, the defense calls up an "expert witness" who says he recently
spoke to the silenced Sister Lucy and she told him that the 1984
consecration met heaven's demands, even though no mention of Russia was
made. Since the first lawyer certainly knows that heaven's requirements
have not been relaxed and just heard a man contradict direct testimony
with hearsay, he requests Sister Lucy be called to verify the claim and
explain such an alleged reversal of her position. But the defense has made
her unavailable for such a clarification, so all we have to go on is the
unverifiable claim of a nonobjective man who is affiliated with an
organization which zealously believes the consecration of Russia has been
done and has taken extreme and illegal attempts to silence anyone who
disagrees.

Could this case possibly be closed? Does the recent hearsay refute the
earlier direct testimony? What if you were a judge hearing this case?
Would it be enough that a man of uncertain reliability claimed Sister
Lucy's position to be reversed, or would such a claim need some sort of
collaboration? Such a new and contradictory claim would either be
dismissed out of hand or the cause of a certain degree of uncertainty. It
would not be simply taken on its face and the previous direct testimony
ignored. This is the situation in which we currently find ourselves with
regards to the Mysteries of Fatima.

Still silenced?

If this revised version of Fatima is so clearly Sister Lucy's position,
as a number of Vatican diplomats so desperately want us to believe, why
can't she announce it to the world, or at least to an unbiased group of
people? If the goal is to completely debunk Fr. Gruner and his claims,
would not the most effective and permanent way be to put him in front of
Sister Lucy and have her tell him directly that he is wrong on all
counts.5

Why is Sister Lucy
still bound to silence on the subject of
Fatima?

Why is Sister Lucy still
bound to silence on the subject of Fatima? Why would the Vatican not
address the many swirling and mysterious questions rather than disseminate
contradictory information and persecute those searching for the answers?
Does it not further fuel the fire that such tactics continue to this day?
Does it not allow people like me to write about all this in a skeptical
manner without looking completely insane? Why not shut all of us up once
and for all? I say they cannot. If they could have, they would have done
so long ago and not be so fearful of the traditional Fatima message.

The fact is that Sister Lucy was silenced because her claims did not
correspond to the revisionist version of Fatima. Most likely, it is for
the same reason that she is still silenced to this day and will probably
remain so to her death. Unfortunately, this most recent article has the
unsettling tone of a last will and testament for the 94-year-old Carmelite
nun. It would seem the Vatican wanted to have "her" on record as verifying
their claims before she is physically unable to answer any further
questions. Instead of describing her as of "sound mind, memory and
understanding," the Vatican release claims her to be "in good health,
lucid and vivacious." 6 Disturbing as it seems, this may be
regarded as her final word on the subject before her death.

Secret meetings and other such
tactics

This sort of "secret communication" has been a favorite tactic of the
Fatima revisionists for years. The first attempt was a typed letter dated
November 8, 1989 and sent by "Sister Lucy" to one Mr. Noelcker, telling
him the consecration of Russia had been accomplished. This "letter" was so
clearly exposed as a fraud, that no one since has been able to use it as a
source, except in vague or indirect terms (as Cardinal Ratzinger did
during the "release" of the Third Secret). Another attempt was a pair of
secret interviews with Sister Lucy conducted on October 11, 1992 and
October 11, 1993 by Carlos Evaristo.

Both the "letter" and the "interviews" suffer from numerous factual
mistakes and details that, at very least, bring their authenticity into
doubt. It appears that the Fatima revisionists have learned from such
mistakes and are aware of the pitfalls of revealing too much information.
As such, the most recent release was kept as short as possible, but still
contained some items that raise more unanswered questions to accompany the
already daunting list:

Statue
of Our Lady of Fatima carried in
procession

"Sister Lucy" makes the claim "I have already said that the
consecration that Our Lady desired was accomplished in 1984..."7 When did she say that? To whom? Is she verifying the typed
letter and the inaccuracies it contains (which include an alleged
consecration of Pope Paul VI that never took place)? Is "she" using the
same vague allusion that was made when the Third Secret was "released"
to avoid the inevitable refutation?

"Sister Lucy" follows up the previous statement with the claim that
the 1984 consecration "...was accepted in heaven."8
How was she made aware of this acceptance if there have been no further
revelations?

The release goes on to say that "Sister Lucy" had "...attentively
read and meditated upon the booklet published by the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith and confirmed everything that was
written there."9 What about the booklet was it necessary
to "meditate upon" in order to confirm its accuracy? Does confirming
"everything" written in the booklet mean that she verifies the Vatican's
interpretation which they said no one was bound to accept? How fortunate
and convenient for Archbishop Bertone.

Finally, "Sister Lucy" says that "...Everything has been
published; no secret remains "10 What are the words that
come after "In Portugal the dogma of the Faith will always be
preserved, etc." and why don't the count as a remaining secret? Have
they ever been published? Why not?

Unanswered questions

There are still a number of answered questions which are not addressed
by the most recent claim and should not be ignored by the "Fatima
finita" crowd. The questions address the authenticity of the Vatican's
(and now "Sister Lucy's") two main claims: the Consecration of Russia was
done in 1984 and the Third Secret was fully revealed. These questions have
been (and should continue to be) repeated ad nauseam, since no one
has been willing to address them. I challenge any Vatican official, the
new "Sister Lucy", a representative of any Fatima revisionist group, or
any Catholic in general to account for the following questions. To do so
would put the nails in the coffin of such "errant" interpretations that
are running rampant among traditionalists. Why wouldn't people making a
career out of resigning Fatima to the past jump at such an opportunity?

The first set of questions concern the Consecration of Russia. These
concern an issue that should be pretty clear. Sister Lucy repeatedly said
two things needed to happen: the participation of the world's bishops and
specific mention of Russia. The nature of the first requirement is
debatable but at very least, the second criteria was never met.

Why are Sister Lucy's reasons for why the consecration didn't happen
in 1982 (which include the mention of Russia) no longer relevant for the
success of the 1984 consecration?

How can Russia be consecrated when it is purposely not mentioned for
political reasons, as reported in Inside the Vatican on November
30, 2000?

What signs of Russia's conversion exist in a country plagued with
abortion, prostitution and child pornography, and is much worse
socially, morally and spiritually than in both 1917 and 1984? How can
Russia convert when proselytizing is outlawed?

What harm would come to performing the consecration "again"
according to Sister Lucy's two basic criteria? Is all this effort worth
the avoidance of mentioning one single word?

With regard to the
Third Secret, the issues are a little less clear (since we're dealing with
a secret) but there still exist a number of reasons to believe we haven't
heard it all:

Why was the Third Secret not revealed in 1960 as was requested by
Our Lady? What became "more clear" about the Third Secret in
1960?

Why have "the words" of Our Lady been mentioned by those who have
read the Third Secret but were not contained in the "release" by the
Vatican?

What are the words that come after "In Portugal the dogma of the
Faith will always be preserved, etc."? Did Mary say the words "et
cetera"? Were the other words forgotten? If she had nothing more to say,
why was "etc." placed at the end? Do not these words not qualify as a
secret yet to be revealed?

Why do several commentaries about the Third Secret (Sister Lucy,
Cardinal Ratzinger) mention dangers to the Faith and apostasy, but the
vision and commentary refer to an assassination attempt?

Why do these same commentaries by Sister Lucy and Cardinal Ratzinger
after the shooting refer to serious and tragic future events rather than
a minor single event that has already happened?

If the Third Secret referred to the assassination attempt on Our
Holy Father, why was it kept secret for the next 19 years?

And
finally, there are questions relating to the actions of certain Vatican
officials concerning Fatima.

Sister
Lucy's cousin Jacinta at Fatima on October 13, 1917 - the day of
the Miracle of the Sun

Why is there so much urgency to consign the message of Fatima to the
past? How does a firm belief in the words and prophesies of Fatima harm
the Church?

Why has Fr. Nicholas Gruner been the subject of over a decade of
persecution rather than be convinced of his supposed errors through
reason or due process — a right even enjoyed by liberals and
heretics?

Why wasn't Sister Lucy publicly asked during the Vatican "release"
on the Third Secret whether the consecration of Russia had been
accomplished? Why instead was an unnamed letter cited as evidence of her
support? Can she only be counted on to say the "right thing" when no one
else is around?

Why does "Sister Lucy" say things privately to certain individuals
which are completely contrary to what Sister Lucy has said publicly? Why
is no explanation given as to what made "her" reverse her position? Why
is no acknowledgement even made of the discrepancy that exists?

Why was Sister Lucy silenced on the subject of Fatima and only
allowed to speak with the explicit permission of Pope John Paul II or
Cardinal Ratzinger? Why does that restriction exist to this
day??? If Fatima really contains "no more mysteries," why can't she
say so publicly? If Sister Lucy is so clearly of one mind on this issue,
what is there risk of her saying?

Who are we to believe?

Are we to believe the same men who have tried to conceal the Third
Secret, revise the requirements of Russia's consecration, silence Sister
Lucy on the subject, ignore or suppress all legitimate questions (like the
above) and persecute those priests and individuals asking them? Or are we
to believe the words of Sister Lucy repeatedly spoken to unbiased
journalists, which are in complete accordance with our own common sense?

Is the silence placed on Sister Lucy going to remain until she dies or
is will she have an opportunity to contradict (or verify and explain) the
claims that have been attributed to her? Is a claim that Sister Lucy has
completely reversed her position deserving of any sort of belief when the
same men making the claim prevent her from saying so herself? To ask the
question is to answer it.

Fittingly, the Vatican concludes their release with the following words
of "Sister Lucy":

"How many things are attributed to me! How many things I am
supposed to have done!"11

In 1917, as a bloody World War raged across Europe and a
revolution loomed in Russia, the Mother of God came to Fatima to
deliver a message. She spoke of heaven, hell and the sins of man
which were being punished by means of war. She prophesized future
events including the end of the first World War and the start of the
second. She also spoke of the nation of Russia...

June 29th marked the death of Cardinal Silvio Oddi, the former
Prefect of the Congregation of the Clergy who is remembered by
Catholic traditionalists for his views on the Tridentine Mass, the
Assisi prayer sessions and the Third Secret of Fatima. Although he
never read the Third Secret, it was of great interest to him
throughout his career. He remarked that...